• If you are having any problems posting threads plz message Kate. since latest update we have had 6 members with problems, sorted those but yet to find the problem.

Federal Election

svengali

svengali

Foundation Member
I thought it might be fun to start a thread to discuss the upcoming election.

Personally, I don't think much of the field - I feel a bit like the bloke who was asked "would you rather be shot or hanged" There is a choice but neither is particularly appealing. Worst case scenario and a highly probable one is a hung parliament which will lead to nothing very much getting done for the next three years just when we need real leadership.

Some food for thought in this recent article on the Yahoo 7 site:

Link is broken, so taken down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a little scenario that I would like to see happen.

A safe seat liberal falls on his/her sword and the Libs have to fill the spot with an experienced candidate.

Guess who just happens to have taken up residence in that locality.

Now that would put the cat amongst the pigeons for both parties.

Perhaps we might even get the PM we should have had.
You really don't appreciate what you had until it's gone.

Political engineering to match the Union driven choice of the labour Party.
 
what a choice.........an oppertunistic right wing labor figure who stands for exactly nothing or a reckless, unrestrained religious maniac who will be a liability of George W Bush proportions.

Pretty depressing that suburban bogans have the balance of power in this country. So pathetic that refugees have become an election issue for some.
 
puddle said:
what a choice.........an oppertunistic right wing labor figure who stands for exactly nothing or a reckless, unrestrained religious maniac who will be a liability of George W Bush proportions.

Pretty depressing that suburban bogans have the balance of power in this country. So pathetic that refugees have become an election issue for some.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with this statement your description of both leaders is negative and inaccurate.And consider this the Australian Parliament is made up 150 members of the lower house + 76 Senates . The mix makes up what sort of Gov. you get. I look forward to the election with interest and Australia's future with optimism.
 
The sacked Liberal party candidate, David Barker, says he stands by anti-Islamic comments he made about his opponent in the Sydney seat of Chifley.

Opposition leader Tony Abbott says Mr Barker is "gone, finished" as a candidate after he posted the remarks on Facebook and attacked his opponent's Muslim faith.

The Coalition has announced its new candidate in Chifley will be 41-year-old small businesswoman Venus Priest.

But Mr Barker has told the ABC there should not be a Muslim in Parliament and he has also taken a swipe at Prime Minister Julia Gillard's lack of faith.

"I'm not anti-Muslim. I believe every one should have their own beliefs," he said.

"But I don't know if we want at this stage in Australian politics a Muslim in the Parliament and an atheist running the Government."

Mr Barker says he does not understand why the Liberal Party has disendorsed him.

"I made a comment that I believe God is the only way to Heaven and we shouldn't have a Muslim candidate running in that area," he said.

"I don't believe that's exactly in line with what we believe as Australians."
Link is broken so has been taken down
Click to expand...

Where do we get these complete losers from? Fatboy belongs in the retard bible belt of the USA
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is only one losers there David Barker note he is was running in a safe A. L. P . seat Barker was never going to Canberra as a liberal MLA, However The ALP and The coalition will always field a candidate there supporters expect it, Now Puddle both party's have trouble finding candidates that have no chance of wining a seat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I tend to agree with Svengali on this election, the last federal election did not see a particularly good choice, and this year its a sight worse in my humble opinion.
Julia Gillard may get the womens vote, and the Liberals/Tony Abbot may get the miners vote.
Not much to go to the polls with methinks
 
I, too, agree with Sven...but what scares me the most isn't the calibre of both party leaders, it's the manipulation of issues by the "back room boys" (from both parties).

Both parties are devoid of policies....for them, it's about saying anything they can get away with that will entice those members of our community who are gullible, ignorant or self-absorbed who, alas, are growing in numbers. Couple this with a media that is hell bent on reporting anything that will increase the number of viewers (why let the truth get in the way of a good story???) and you have an election that is primed to be manipulated by whoever can bullshit the most.

I accept that it’s easier to sit on the side lines and cast stones, but when you see a cooking show become prime time news, consistent rubbish from so called current affairs programs (see Media Watch), people making comments about a political system they know nothing about (read some of the blogs regarding preferential voting), politicians who say that something is a “vote winner” and one becomes rather cynical about the whole process.

It’s as though the “Tampa” issue has come back to haunt us.

Fudd
 
I would have thought the axing of lemon07 had demonstrated that we don't elect a PM, we elect a party to run the government who elect their own leader. So it's not the red headed godless spinster, verses a scrawny man with an imaginary friend.
Hopefully this election doesn't turn into a debate on Religion or illegal immigration, they are piss ant topics that have bugger all to do with the way the country runs.
 
Well, the debate has happened and, as usual, Labor was given the win. I really wonder where they get their studio audiences from but, wherever, 96 is really too small a sample to mean much when a few million Australians head for the polling booths for real.

As debates go it was a pretty good one and both leaders stated their cases without too much personal backbiting. It will be interesting to see how the two party preferred stats come out on Monday.
 
Well, the debate has happened and, as usual, Labor was given the win. I really wonder where they get their studio audiences from but, wherever, 96 is really too small a sample to mean much when a few million Australians head for the polling booths for real.

As debates go it was a pretty good one and both leaders stated their cases without too much personal backbiting. It will be interesting to see how the two party preferred stats come out on Monday.
 
What bothers me is that we seem to have very short memories politically. Hewson campaigned on the GST and lost an election. Howard lied so many times it just wasn't funny. Who was it that said 'we will never have a GST'? Yet we have it and both parties have been in government and we still have it. How does one tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.

What I have always wanted to see, since my earliest memories of elections in the 1960's, is debate based on what is best for the country, not just bashing the other party.

Maybe in my next lifetime.
 
Mine too Maryanne.... I lived and worked in her electorate (Lalor) and was chairman of a community house and met her several times and always found her very approachable.
 
I reckon people get too rapped up with whose got what policy

- no ones going to take a policy essential to run the country to an election (usually) because ther not sexy policys often as well as unpopular

I vote as to who I trust to run the country better - which doesnt mean all beer and skittles

I had too sit defenceless watching Labor crucify this country until I turned 18

granted JH in the end thought he was god and would be PM forever to the partys detriment. Maybe it was time for him to get a reality check but theprice for just over 2 1/2 years of hard labor again has been a truly harsh lesson for Australians

the great shame was losing Costello - I would be happier seeing him front the opposition rather than Abbot
 
Maryanne - it may best to vote for a party, not an individual!! Study her policies (if she has any) and then make an informed decision.
 
how many people on this forum can honestly say they understood the previously propopsed Super Tax on Mining companies.
 
bushseeker said:
it pays to be informed

a vote for the greens is a vot for more hard Labor
Click to expand...

Only if you follow there how to vote cards or tick Green senate ticket above the line, and by the way I will always disagree that this or any Australian election offers a poor choice, last time there were 11 candidates to chose from in the electorate I live in ( something for everyone)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A vote for Lqabour is a vote for a greens controlled Senate.

If you thought the last 2 1/2 years were bad get used to the Idea that it is going to get worse.

Pull the troops out he says! Its not our fight.

Of course its our fight. We have little choice.

Successive governments have nuetered our defence force to the point that we would not last a week if attacked. All Ammunition and Fuel Reserves used.
30 years ago each arm of the defence force had a manpower total equal to the combined total of todays manpower.

We need the good old US of A to save our collective arses.
That comes at a price.
When asked to assist them we better do it.
When those little dark fellows to the north come looking for the family jewels with their big sharp knives we will need them to be there for us.

The alternative would be to become Nuke capable and increase our defence spending by three or four times.
 
mrruss3ll said:
both candidates are terrible, GREENS
Click to expand...

This kind of thinking is dangerous but all too common. People believe that voting green will give environmental issues a leg-up and help save the planet.

WRONG!

When they are not hugging trees or saving whales the greens are, to a man (or woman) red-rag-waving radical left-wing lunatic socialists. They are so far left they would make Fidel Castro look like John Howard and the only reason they deal with Labor is that they hate them just a little bit less than they hate the Libs.

Let them have any worthwhile influence in Parliament at your absolute peril.
 
bushseeker said:
I had too sit defenceless watching Labor crucify this country until I turned 18

granted JH in the end thought he was god and would be PM forever to the partys detriment. Maybe it was time for him to get a reality check but theprice for just over 2 1/2 years of hard labor again has been a truly harsh lesson for Australians

the great shame was losing Costello - I would be happier seeing him front the opposition rather than Abbot
Click to expand...


Nothing more intrigueing than somebody with a rose coloured view of the Howard Years.


For liberals voters, I'm not sure what the 'price' has been for 2 and half years of labor? There is not much distance between them and the so called Liberal Party on a range of issues, what is they have done that would have been so different to another Howard term? Can you give some examples?

The only things I can think of is taking combat troops out of Iraq, not putting war refugees in desert concentration camps (now to be reinstated no doubt),refusing to strip away workplace rights and increasing funding for health eduction. Pretty hard to argue that they are bad decisions.

The remainder of labor's policies during their last term should be discriminatory, jingoistic and jerk kneed enough to satisfy most people on the right in Australia.
 
whilom said:
When those little dark fellows to the north come looking for the family jewels with their big sharp knives we will need them to be there for us.
Click to expand...


^^^The intellectual calibre of the 'average Australian' is always so refreshing.
 
puddle said:
Nothing sadder than somebody with a rose coloured view of the Howard Years.


For liberals voters, I'm not sure what the 'price' has been for 2 and half years of labor? There is not much distance between them and the so called Liberal Party on a range of issues, what is they have done that would have been so different to another Howard term? Can you give some examples?

The only things I can think of is taking combat troops out of Iraq, not putting war refugees in desert concentration camps (now to be reinstated no doubt),refusing to strip away workplace rights and increasing funding for health eduction. Pretty hard to argue that they are bad decisions.

The remainder of labor's policies during their last term should be discriminatory, jingoistic and jerk kneed enough to satisfy most people on the right in Australia.
Click to expand...

Now lets see whats different One .. surplus into deficit.. two green light to people smuggling,, three trying to kill mining industrial
 
Puddle,

It seems that your understanding of defence issues is only exceeded by your in depth political expertise.

1960-70 RAAF 42000
RAN 38000
RAR 45000

2010 Grand Total = Less than 50000 regulars
 
Farm Boy said:
Now lets see whats different One .. surplus into deficit.. two green light to people smuggling,, three trying to kill mining industrial
Click to expand...


These are just talking points farm boy.

I'm not a labor voter so I have no need to defend them, though I find these catch-cry, talking points you've rattled off to be one of the biggest obstacles to us having decent political leadership in this country.

We can examine each of them and see they don't stand up to any scrutiny:

Surplus into deficit- if providing economic stimulus during the GFE was such a dangerous move, why is that most economists agreed that labor's policies were the right thing to do?

Green light to people smuggling- where is the evidence that people smuggling increased because of the labor rolling back some of the Howard Government's policies? Are you aware that refugees fleeing their country increased worldwide during this period? The fact that was a surge in refugees after Howard bought in temporary protection visas should be enough to show you that the numbers are not affected by government policy.

Trying to kill the mining industry- this is obviously the most rediculous claim. An undertaxed industry was asked to pay more (but only on the upper end of it's obscene profits). The industry embarks on a fear campaign that miners will up and leave if they can no longer rape our mines at bargain basement prices and members of the public fall for it hook line and sinker. Do you honestly think if this mining tax would hurt investment in this area one of the richest men in the country (Gerry Harvery) would have supported it's introduction?
 
whilom said:
Puddle,

It seems that your understanding of defence issues is only exceeded by your in depth political expertise.

1960-70 RAAF 42000
RAN 38000
RAR 45000

2010 Grand Total = Less than 50000 regulars
Click to expand...


I think the idea that we could face an invasion is just something the Americans would like us to believe so we remain dependent on them (so they can have sidekicks along for the ride in their military adventures in order to make them look less unilateral). The defense establishment obviously needs to perpetuate these kind of beliefs as well, otherwise it could never justify it's existence.

China doesn't even have a deep water navy, so we can rule that out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top